Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <49.2005306.26096710@aol.com>:
> Bertvan:
> Some scientists want to study ALL of reality. If mind, soul,
> God, free will, consciousness, information, purpose or other
> non-materialist phenomena exist, they are part of reality.
> Physics and cosmology aren't so picky about what they consider.
> Chemist Prigogine's self-organization isn't really a materialist
> concept. Twentieth century biology might have insisted upon a
> materialist assumption, but quite a few biologists are beginning
> to claim they can do just fine without it. (You don't want their
> names again, do you?)
Periodically, I'm mystified why you make this strange distinction
between materialists and non-materialists. God, free will,
consciousness, information, purpose can all be studied by
materialists, their conclusions so far are that these phenomena
can be explained with natural laws.
If I understand his arguments correctly, even Michael Denton
uses entirely materalistic assumptions to explain life.
Could you define this word "materialism" that comes up so often
in your posts and explain why and how it really differs from
non-materialism?
(BTW, is there any important distinction between materialism
and naturalism?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 20:31:50 EST